07-24-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Masters replied, Tonight you will hear from a number of clientele. They just want to be able to sit outside and enjoy an adult beverage. Mr. Burg's competitors are within walking distance and one (1) of them has a huge outside beer garden. Mr. Burg's establishment is not a huge place. The patrons want to have a place where they can go and, on nicer days, sit outside and enjoy an adult beverage. He made mistakes early on by using the deck for bands and music, and he has learned not only that isn't what he wants but it wasn't compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Burg is fine with the commitments. Committeemember Broden then asked, How might this affect other legal non-conforming uses? Mr. Masters replied, This is specific to this establishment and primarily,the use of the outside deck. A bar is allowed to have an outside deck, it is just that this one (1) didn't have a deck,they built one (1), and it was considered an expansion. We are asking for something we don't currently have, arguably. Committeemember Ferlic stated, I apologize. Aladean DeRose and I had been working on language and she was supposed to share that with you and it included the word `broadcast' to ensure there not to be any music not only being played on the patio but also being broadcasted onto the patio. I will work with Ms. DeRose and Council Attorney Palmer and we will present some language to you before the 7:00 p.m. full Council meeting tonight. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition of the legislation. Linnie Caye, 821 S Walnut Street, stated, You have to imagine having an outdoor night club within three hundred (300) feet of your home. With approximately twenty(20)to twenty-two (22)people,this zoning petition for a special exception might be the only protection we have as residents for peace and tranquility against the potential disruption of this one (1)multi- millionaire business-owner and his desire to reuse his deck as a night club. Nearly a dozen residents have complained over the years.Nevertheless,the voice of even one (1) of the resident's complaint should take precedence over a business in a residential area. The statements from patrons who do not live from within three hundred (300) feet of the bar should be irrelevant. The denial of the special exception will not shut down or adversely affect the bar. It will simply force the owner to use the bar as it has been used for decades, without a patio. I urge you not to reward him for his blatant disregard for rules and regulations. Residents in my neighborhood have coexisted with a number of bars for decades. None of these bars have conducted business with an outdoor night club. Regardless of what commitment clause is made with relation to the deck, he has clearly demonstrated his disregard for the law by not obtaining the zoning approvals before he built and then by using the deck even after knowing it was illegal, forcing the City to obtain a motion to cease the use. He has also demonstrated on how he intends on using the deck, indicative of the past three (3) disruptive years. He has not proven himself to be trustworthy and, therefore, should not be granted the special exception use. Since he violated zoning for two (2) years, what indication has his behavior provided to give cause for anyone to believe that he will not violate again? Maybe he knows that playing music and having patrons on the deck past 11:00 p.m. is a violation that will be extremely difficult if not, impossible,to enforce. The South Bend Police Department will have no jurisdiction to enforce a violation of a 6